Disclaimer:  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  I'm just trying to simplify things by separating the benefits afforded by marriage from the "emotional" aspects.  This is not a "yes" vs "no" debate.  There's no right or wrong.  I just want expressions of ideas.  By not having sides I hope to reduce the feeling of being threatened, attacked and the need to go on the defensive.  I doubt I'll succeed but here it goes.

If gay marriage was strictly about expressing one's love, and commitment to another human being in front of firends and relatives, then gays would either have a non-religious ceremony and be done with it or petition/boycott/picket religious groups to perform the ceremony (regardless of legal benefits).  But the fact that gays get very emotional about this issue means that there is an "emotional" aspect to gay marriage as well.

Instead, gays have been petitioning the government in order to get the law changed.  One may argue that once the law is changed that religious institutions would have to follow suit (thus killing two birds with one stone) but the separation of church and state would prevent the government from telling religious institutions who they can and cannot marry.  Therefore, if the law is changed then their only gain is in benefits.  But if benefits were the whole story, then gays would focus strictly on obtaining said benefits and forget about the word "marriage."

I'll go out on a limb and claim that most people see the need for the government to promote certain behavior over another.  For example, penalizing smoking in order to promote the good health of its citizens which in turn saves money spent on health care.

But having said that, if the government intends to promote heterosexual behaviors over homosexual behaviors, it has to openly specify which specific behavior it is promoting.  For example, if the government wants to promote the reproductive behavior of heterosexuals (for the benefit of replacement level fertility) then it needs to provide benefits specifically for that behavior.  In other words, it cannot tie that behavior to marriage.

Why make the distinction?  Because I want to know exactly what it is that the government is trying to promote by giving married couples certain benefits.  I want to know what those benefits are.  I want to know which marriage benefits (if any) are not allowed under a civil union.

Why not just Google it?  Because some of you guys are really good at Googling and finding nice visual aids ;)

So, if that's what I'm after, why the debate title?  It gets people fired up and ready to debate and argue.  I mean, think about why you clicked on this debate.  In short, it gets me noticed (I guess I'm an attention whore)   ;)